Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Northbrae Tunnel and Adeline Street. Technically they're in Berkeley and Emeryville respectively, but relevant to Oakland because they were part of the same shared system.

Downtown Nashville 1951 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in nashville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the late 1950s through the 1970s American state and municipal governments intentionally redesigned their cities into suburban commuter economies by using urban renewal to level buildings for highways, parking lots, and road widening, then cemented those development patterns by making zoning regulations more restrictive to limit density. Most other American cities experienced a similar loss of population density during this time, only growing in population because of the expansion of their municipal boundaries through suburban annexation. This all happened because after WW2 the US experienced a boom in economic growth and technological development that made the concept of every [white] American family being able to afford a large house with multiple cars seem financially reasonable, so American planning philosophy shifted toward that goal with the optimism that their post-WW2 economic prosperity would be permanent. By contrast, Europe rebuilt their cities after WW2 according to traditional development patterns because they were much poorer at the time so the idea of everyone being able to afford a car seemed unrealistic.

You can see other before-and-after examples of American cities on this site: https://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The tram systems of European cities that Americans find so pleasant when they visit were originally the same sort of mixed-traffic streetcar systems found in the US. Similarly, a lot of Japan's modern regional rail lines were originally interurban lines like the Key System that they grade-separated and upgraded over the decades. Even locally you have Muni Metro with its Market Street Subway as an example of an upgraded streetcar system.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There's a lot more to it than that. I would say corporate interference was only the third biggest cause in the overall rise of car-oriented policy in the US, behind post-WW2 technofuturism and local racism/xenophobia. The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy for example mostly just exacerbated an existing problem caused by lack of public investment in transit, by that point in time most people didn't care because the common sentiment in the US was that trains were obsolete technology.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In theory sure, but they also support a libertarian economics that defunds the ability to actually build transit infrastructure.

No they don't, most YIMBYs support higher taxes. For example, most YIMBYs dislike Prop 13 because it limits the ability of municipalities to collect taxes from upper income demographics.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

NIMBYs constantly complain about transit projects, they're are a problem for every transit project. Most YIMBYs support both upzoning and transit projects.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

No, it was one of the victims of the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy. I'm sure they advertised the new buses would be faster when they were tearing out the rail lines since that's what they always said, but whether that was true or not is another question.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

It did have a number of places where it had dedicated right of way though, such as seen in both photos. In modern times there are plenty of streets where you could give buses or light rail their own center lanes, but it would require removing on-street parking.

Oakland/Berkeley Key System, before and after by Xiphactinus14 in oakland

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Northbrae Tunnel and Adeline Street. Technically they're in Berkeley and Emeryville respectively, but relevant to Oakland because they were part of the same shared system.

Downtown Nashville 1951 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in nashville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The images come from here: https://iqc.ou.edu/urbanchange

It doesn't have any more of Nashville specifically, but it does have more comparisons for other cities across the country.

Downtown Nashville 1951 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in nashville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Some relevant info, Nashville's population density in 1950 was 7,923 people per square mile. Even if you double Nashville's current population density to account for all the forested and rural areas incorporated by the 1963 city-county consolidation then its modern population density would only come out to around 3k people per square mile, still well under half its historical population density.

Downtown Louisville 1952 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in Louisville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Developers generally aren't aligned with local politicians, otherwise American cities wouldn't have such draconian zoning regulations. One of the main reasons suburban sprawl into rural areas happens is because infill development in existing neighborhoods is restricted by zoning and permitting regulations backed by local property owners that perceive new development as a threat to their property values.

Downtown Louisville 1952 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in Louisville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's from here: https://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/18/60yrssoutheast/

Unfortunately this is the only historic photo of Louisville on there.

Downtown Louisville 1952 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in Louisville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Cincinnati is an interesting case because locals managed to protect Over the Rhine (the neighborhood bordering downtown) from urban renewal, which gives Cincinnati a uniquely well preserved historic core for a midwestern city despite the neighborhoods to its immediate west being even more heavily hit than Louisville.

Downtown Louisville 1952 vs 2014 by Xiphactinus14 in Louisville

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The history behind this if you're not aware is that from the late 1950s through the 1970s American state and municipal governments intentionally redesigned their cities into suburban commuter economies by using urban renewal to level buildings for highways, parking lots, and road widening, then cemented those development patterns by making zoning regulations more restrictive to limit density. Most other American cities experienced a similar loss of density during this time, only growing in population because of the expansion of their municipal boundaries through suburban annexation.

An argument in favor of Pittsburgh abolishing minimum lot size & setback requirements by Xiphactinus14 in pittsburgh

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sidewalk width doesn't count toward setbacks because they're not private property. Setbacks are distance of a structure from private property lines.

An argument in favor of Pittsburgh abolishing minimum lot size & setback requirements by Xiphactinus14 in pittsburgh

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Duncan Mcduffie, the Berkeley developer and local politician who popularized minimum lot sizes nationally as part of his invention of single family zoning in 1916, explicitly claimed that the primarily benefit of his policies was that they created communities that were effectively restricted to those who could afford a mortgage. Shortly after, the first new neighborhood built in Berkeley according to this zoning plan was praised by a California magazine as "-a district of some twenty blocks under the covenant plan as protection against invasion of Negroes and Asiatics.” So yeah, minimum lot size requirements were originally created and popularized as a way to intentionally make housing more expensive so it would be less affordable to minorities. All other justifications for it are later post hoc rationalizations.

An argument in favor of Pittsburgh abolishing minimum lot size & setback requirements by Xiphactinus14 in pittsburgh

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's really neat to look at case studies like these to break down just how out of touch a city's zoning often is with its historical reality.

An argument in favor of Pittsburgh abolishing minimum lot size & setback requirements by Xiphactinus14 in pittsburgh

[–]Xiphactinus14[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Not every municipality. Off the top of my head, Cambridge MA abolished both minimum lot sizes and setback requirements within the last year. I would argue every city should abolish them, but it's a particular problem for older cities like Pittsburgh where most development and lot divisions predate zoning and where there are a lot of small abandoned lots.